When we see records being broken and unprecedented events such as this, the onus is on those who deny any connection to climate change to prove their case. Global warming has fundamentally altered the background conditions that give rise to all weather. In the strictest sense, all weather is now connected to climate change. Kevin Trenberth

HIT THE PAGE DOWN KEY TO SEE THE POSTS
Now at 8,800+ articles. HIT THE PAGE DOWN KEY TO SEE THE POSTS

When
the water receded after Hurricane Milo of 2030, there was a foot of
sand covering the famous bow-tie floor in the lobby of the
Fontaine­bleau hotel in Miami Beach. A dead manatee floated in the pool
where Elvis had once swum. Most of the damage occurred not from the
hurricane's 175-mph winds, but from the 24-foot storm surge that
overwhelmed the low-lying city. In South Beach, the old art-deco­
buildings were swept off their foundations. Mansions on Star Island were
flooded up to their cut-glass doorknobs. A 17-mile stretch of Highway
A1A that ran along the famous beaches up to Fort Lauderdale disappeared
into the Atlantic. The storm knocked out the wastewater-treatment plant
on Virginia Key, forcing the city to dump hundreds of millions of
gallons of raw sewage into Biscayne Bay. Tampons and condoms littered
the beaches, and the stench of human excrement stoked fears of cholera.
More than 800 people died, many of them swept away by the surging waters
that submerged much of Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale; 13 people were
killed in traffic accidents as they scrambled to escape the city after
the news spread – falsely, it turned out – that one of the nuclear
reactors at Turkey Point, an aging power plant 24 miles south of Miami,
had been destroyed by the surge and sent a radioactive cloud over the
city.The president, of course, said Miami would be back, that the
hurricane did not kill the city, and that Americans did not give up. But
it was clear to those not fooling themselves that this storm was the
beginning of the end. With sea levels more than a foot higher than
they'd been at the dawn of the century, South Florida was wet,
vulnerable and bankrupt. Attempts had been made to armor the coastline,
to build sea walls and elevate buildings, but it was a futile
undertaking. The coastline from Miami Beach up to Jupiter had been a
little more than a series of rugged limestone crags since the mid-2020s,
when the state, unable to lay out $100 million every few years to pump
in fresh sand, had given up trying to save South Florida's world-famous­
beaches. In that past decade, tourist visits had plummeted by 40%, even after the Florida legislature agreed to allow casino
gambling in a desperate attempt to raise revenue for storm protection.
The city of Homestead, in southern Miami-Dade County, which had been
flattened by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, had to be completely abandoned.
Thousands of tract homes were bulldozed because they were a public
health hazard. In the parts of the county that were still inhabitable,
only the wealthiest could afford to insure their homes. Mortgages were
nearly impossible to get, mostly because banks didn't believe the homes
would be there in 30 years. At high tide, many roads were impassable,
even for the most modern semiaquatic vehicles.But Hurricane Milo was unexpectedly devastating. Because sea-level­
rise had already pushed the water table so high, it took weeks for the
storm waters to recede. Salt water corroded underground wiring, leaving
parts of the city dark for months. Drinking-water­ wells were ruined.
Interstate 95 was clogged with cars and trucks stuffed with animals and
personal belongings, as hundreds of thousands of people fled north to
Orlando, the highest ground in central Florida. Developers drew up plans
for new buildings on stilts, but few were built. A new flexible
carbon-fiber­ bridge was proposed to link Miami Beach with the mainland,
but the bankrupt city couldn't secure financing and the project fell
apart. The skyscrapers that had gone up during the Obama years were
gradually abandoned and used as staging grounds for drug runners and
exotic-animal traffickers. A crocodile nested in the ruins of the Pérez
Art Museum.

And still, the waters kept rising, nearly a foot each decade. By the
latter end of the 21st century, Miami became something else entirely: a
popular snorkeling spot where people could swim with sharks and sea
turtles and explore the wreckage of a great American city.

Even
more than Silicon Valley, Miami embodies the central technological myth
of our time – that nature can not only be tamed but made irrelevant.
Miami was a mosquito-and-crocodile-filled swampland for thousands of
years, virtually uninhabited until the late 1800s. Then developers
arrived, canals were dug, swamps were drained, and a city emerged that
was unlike any other place on the planet, an edge-of-the-world,
air-conditioned dreamland of sunshine and beaches and drugs and money;
Jan Nijman, the former director of the Urban Studies Program at the
University of Miami, called 20th-century Miami "a citadel of fantastical
consumption." Floods would come and go and hurricanes might blow
through, but the city would survive, if only because no one could
imagine a force more powerful than human ingenuity. That defiance of
nature – the sense that the rules don't apply here – gave the city its
great energy. But it is also what will cause its demise.You would never know it from looking at Miami today. Rivers of money
are flowing in from Latin America, Europe and beyond, new upscale
shopping malls are opening, and the skyline is crowded with construction
cranes. But the unavoidable truth is that sea levels are rising and
Miami is on its way to becoming an American Atlantis. It may be another
century before the city is completely underwater (though some
more-pessimistic­ scientists predict it could be much sooner), but life
in the vibrant metropolis of 5.5 million people will begin to dissolve
much quicker, most likely within a few decades. The rising waters will
destroy Miami slowly, by seeping into wiring, roads, building
foundations and drinking-water supplies – and quickly, by increasing the
destructive power of hurricanes. "Miami, as we know it today, is
doomed," says Harold Wanless, the chairman of the department of
geological sciences at the University of Miami. "It's not a question of
if. It's a question of when."Sea-level rise is not a hypothetical disaster. It is a physical fact
of life on a warming planet, the basic dynamics of which even a child
can understand: Heat melts ice. Since the 1920s, the global average sea
level has risen about nine inches, mostly from the thermal expansion of
the ocean water. But thanks to our 200-year-long fossil-fuel binge, the
great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are starting to melt
rapidly now, causing the rate of sea-level rise to grow exponentially.
The latest research, including an assessment by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, suggests that sea level could rise more
than six feet by the end of the century. James Hansen, the godfather of
global-warming science, has argued that it could increase as high as 16
feet by then – and Wanless believes that it could continue rising a foot
each decade after that. "With six feet of sea-level rise, South Florida
is toast," says Tom Gustafson, a former Florida speaker of the House
and a climate-change-policy advocate. Even if we cut carbon pollution
overnight, it won't save us. Ohio State glaciologist Jason Box has said
he believes we already have 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the
system.

Of course, South Florida is not the only place that will be
devastated by sea-level rise. London, Boston, New York and Shanghai are
all vulnerable, as are low-lying underdeveloped nations like Bangladesh.
But South Florida is uniquely screwed, in part because about 75%
of the 5.5 million people in South Florida live along the coast. And
unlike many cities, where the wealth congregates in the hills, southern
Florida's most valuable real estate is right on the water. The
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development lists Miami as
the number-one most vulnerable city worldwide in terms of property
damage, with more than $416 billion in assets at risk to storm-related
flooding and sea-level rise.

South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat
topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet
above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that
runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12
feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of
southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone;
if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an
isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling
overpasses. And the waters won't just come in from the east – because
the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the
west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone
plateau. "Imagine Swiss cheese, and you'll have a pretty good idea what
the rock under southern Florida looks like," says Glenn Landers, a
senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water
moves around easily – it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on
golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building
foundations from below. "Conventional sea walls and barriers are not
effective here," says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch
firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas.
"Protecting the city, if it is possible, will require innovative
solutions."Those solutions are not likely to be forthcoming from the political
realm. The statehouse in Tallahassee is a monument to climate-change
denial. "You can't even say the words 'climate change' on the House
floor without being run out of the building," says Gustafson. Florida
Sen. Marco Rubio, positioning himself for a run at the presidency in
2016, is another denier, still trotting out the tired old argument that
"no matter how many job-killing­ laws we pass, our government can't
control the weather." Gov. Rick Scott, a Tea Party Republican, says he's
"not convinced" that global warming is caused by human beings. Since
taking office in 2011, Scott has targeted environmental protections of
every sort and slashed the budget of the South Florida Water Management
District, the agency in charge of managing water supply in the region,
as well as restoration of the Everglades. "There is no serious thinking,
no serious planning, about any of this going on at the state level,"
says Chuck Watson, a disaster-­impact analyst with longtime experience
in Florida. "The view is, 'Well, if it gets real bad, the federal
government will bail us out.' It is beyond denial; it is flat-out
delusional."

Local governments, including Broward and Miami-Dade counties, have
tried to compensate by forging regional agreements to cut carbon
pollution and upgrade infrastructure to make their cities more
resilient, but without help (and money) from the state and federal
governments, it's pretty ineffective. Given how much Florida has to lose
from climate change, the abdication of leadership by state and federal
politicians is almost suicidal – when it isn't downright comical. Watson
recalls attending a meeting on natural-hazard-response planning in
South Florida, funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
state: "I mentioned sea-level rise, and I was treated to a 15-minute
lecture on Genesis by one of the commissioners. He said, 'God destroyed
the Earth with water the first time, and he promised he wouldn't do it
again. So all of you who are pushing fears about sea-level rise, go back
and read the Bible.'"

Rising
seas will present an escalating series of challenges, most of which, on
their own, will appear to be manageable. It's not hard to see how it
will play out: As each new crisis arises, engineers will propose
expensive solutions and people may be fooled into thinking that
sea-level­ rise is not such a big deal. But in many cases, sea-wall
extensions and elaborate pumping and drainage systems will turn out to
be giant boondoggles, with money shoveled out to politically connected
contractors for projects that are ineffective or overwhelmed by
continually rising seas. "Engineers want to sell solutions, and often
that means downplaying the seriousness of the problem in the long term,"
says Wanless.One of the first consequences of rising seas will be loss of drinking
water. In fact, it's already starting to happen. Nobody understands
this better than Jayantha Obeysekera, the chief modeler for the South
Florida Water Management District, who is known to everyone as "Obey."
The water-control system in Florida is crazily complex, even to people
whose business it is to understand it. One recent hot morning, Obey and I
visited several dikes and canals in the Miami area.Our first stop was a big steel gate – in water-management parlance,
it's called a "salinity-control structure" – in a poor black
neighborhood in North Miami. We turned off a busy four-lane road and
drove through a grassy area littered with soda bottles and plastic bags,
stopped at the gate and stood at the edge of a 30-foot-wide canal.
Three manatees floated lazily in the stagnant water. This canal, like
hundreds of others in South Florida, was dredged in the early 20th
century to allow water to drain out of the Everglades. The canals worked
fine for a while, lowering the water level in the swamp enough to allow
developers to pave them over and make millions selling the American
Dream to sun-starved suburbanites. But then by the 1950s, people started
noticing their drinking water was getting salty. In South Florida, the
drinking-water supply comes from a big lake just below the surface known
as the Biscayne aquifer. Engineers examined the situation and
determined that the combination of draining the swamps and pumping out
the aquifer had changed hydrostatic pressure underground and allowed
salt water to move into the aquifer. To stop this, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District built dozens
of these salinity-­control structures at key points on the canals. When
they were closed, salty water wasn't able to flow into the canals. But
if there was a big storm and intense flooding, the gates could be opened
to allow drainage.That worked pretty well for a time. The gates were engineered so
that, when they were closed, the fresh water was about a foot and a half
higher than the salt water. This freshwater "head" (as engineers called
it) helped keep pressure in the aquifer and kept the salt water at bay.But in the 50 years since the structures were built, much has
changed. For one thing, nearly 80% of the fresh water flowing
into the Everglades has been diverted, some of it into
industrial-­agriculture operations. At the same time, consumption has
skyrocketed: The 5.5 million or so people who now live in South Florida
consume more than 3 billion gallons of water every day (including
industry and agriculture). Almost all of that is pumped out of the
aquifer, drawing it down and allowing more and more salt water to move
in. At the same time, the sea level is rising (about nine inches since
the canals were first dredged), which also helps push more salt water
into the aquifer.

"Here, you can see the problem," Obey says, pointing to the saltwater
side of the gate. "The water is only 10 inches lower on this side than
on the canal. When this structure was built in 1960, it was a foot and a
half. We are reaching equilibrium."Obey explains that when there is a torrential rain (a frequent
occurrence) and inland Florida floods, there is nowhere for the water to
go. Cities on the western edge of Miami-Dade County, such as Hialeah
and Sweetwater, are now at risk of massive flooding with every big
storm. To solve this, the South Florida Water District is installing
pumps on the freshwater side of the control structures on the canals.
The pumps, which cost about $70 million each, can take the runoff water
from storms and pump it into the ocean to alleviate flooding.But stopping saltwater incursion is more difficult. The town of
Hallandale Beach, just a few miles north of Miami, had to close six of
its eight wells due to saltwater intrusion. The town now buys half its
water from a well field in Broward County and is working on a deal to
drill six new wells of its own, at a cost of about $10 million. Fort
Lauderdale has also faced saltwater intrusion, as has Lake Worth, a
community just south of Palm Beach. "In the long run, the whole area is
likely to have problems," Obey says.The conventional solution to this was simple: Drill new drinking
wells farther west, away from the salty water. The trouble is, engineers
have done that already and can't move any farther west without running
into the Everglades. Instead, engineers are now turning to more radical
solutions, such as trying to capture storm water and store it
underground, or reuse water from sewage-­treatment plants. This will
help, but ultimately South Florida is likely to rely more and more on
desalination, a complex industrial-­scale process that eliminates the
salt from the sea water. Right now, South Florida has 35 desalination
plants operating, with seven more under construction. They have the
capacity to produce 245 million gallons of potable water per day. But
desalinization is expensive and requires huge amounts of energy. In
2008, the city of Tampa opened a new $158 million desalination plant,
one of the largest in the nation, which produces up to 25 million
gallons of fresh water a day – about 10% of the region's water
needs. Construction costs alone will run about $6 billion to desalinate
just one-third of the water used for southern Florida.

For many cities in South Florida, securing a reliable supply of
drinking water is going to be a heavy financial burden. "South Florida
is not going to run out of drinking water," says Fred Bloetscher, an
associate professor of civil engineering at Florida Atlantic University.
"But it will be an expensive fix." Bloetscher estimates it will cost
upward of $20 billion to $30 billion to re­plumb South Florida and armor
it with pumps and a stormwater-recapturing system to deal with a
three-foot sea-level rise. And when the waters keep rising? "Well, you
just have to believe that we will come up with some kind of a solution,"
Bloetscher says.Later in the day, Obey and I visit another gate along what was once
the Miami River. Today, it has been dredged and transformed into a
charmless canal. Obey shows me the new pumps that were recently
installed on the structure to control flooding in the area. We are
standing on the east side of the structure, where the sea bumps against
the steel gates. I ask Obey if he can imagine a day when South
Floridians find themselves surrounded by the water but with no clean
fresh water to drink. "I do not have an answer to that question," he
says modestly. "Right now, I'm focused on the next decade or two. That
will be difficult enough."

I
was driving with Harold Wanless through Miami Beach one day when the
sun suddenly disappeared and the skies opened up. When it rains in
Miami, it's spooky. Blue sky vanishes and suddenly water is everywhere,
pooling in streets, flooding parking lots, turning intersections into
submarine crossings. Even for a nonbeliever like me, it feels biblical,
as if God were punishing the good citizens of Miami Beach for spending
too much time on the dance floor. At Alton Road and 10th Street, we
watched a woman in a Toyota stall at a traffic light as water rose up to
the doors. A man waded out to help her, water up to his knees. This
flooding has gotten worse with each passing year, happening not only
after torrential rainstorms but during high tides, too, when rising sea
water backs up through the city's antiquated drainage system. Wanless,
71, who drives an SUV that is littered with research equipment,
notebooks and mud, shook his head with pity. "This is what global
warming looks like," he explained. "If you live in South Florida and
you're not building a boat, you're not facing reality."

Michael Góngora, a Miami Beach city commissioner, prides himself on
his willingness to face reality. We met at a conference in April on
extreme weather held downtown, where Góngora spoke eloquently about the
dangers of more intense hurricanes and about his commitment to
sustainability. "We want to be the greenest city in Florida," he said
proudly. Góngora, 43, the state's first openly gay commissioner, is now
running for mayor of Miami Beach. He was, notably, the only politician
at the extreme-weather conference.Góngora has as much green cred as any politician in Miami. As
commissioner, he has pushed for the first citywide recycling program and
helped create a sustainability plan that encourages developers to erect
greener buildings. When it comes to sea-level rise, he is no denier:
"It is a big challenge," he told me one morning in his sparsely
furnished office on the fourth floor of Miami Beach City Hall. Like most
South Floridians, he believes sea-level­ rise is something that is
going to happen slowly and that engineers will figure out a way to
address. "There is $24 billion dollars of real-estate investment here,"
says Góngora. "The people who own that property are not going to let it
just be washed away. We will figure out a solution. It's too valuable
not to."Truth be told, it's hard to live on a thin barrier island seven miles
long like Miami Beach and be a climate-­change denier. The ocean-facing
side is protected by a man-made dune and beach, which is 10 feet high
on the southern end, but the west side of the island is only a few feet
above Biscayne Bay. Not so many years ago, the west side was a mangrove
swamp. When the city emerged in the 1920s, nobody gave any thought to
sea-level rise – they just chopped down the mangroves and started
building on the low, swampy ground. As a result, the west side of Miami
Beach is among the most flood-prone areas in Florida.

Whenever there is a
full moon and a high tide, the sea water comes up through the old storm
drains and flows into the streets. In some places, it bubbles up
between the street and the sidewalk. During high tide, Miami Beach can
feel like it is being swallowed up by the waves. And of course, as the
seas rise, this is only going to get worse.To address this, the city of Miami Beach hired CDM Smith, a
Massachusetts-based engineering firm, to come up with a $200 million
stormwater plan that, in theory, will keep the city dry for the next 20
years. Under the plan, the city will build sea walls, triple the number
of stormwater-drainage pumps, reline storm-discharge pipes and install
one-way valves on outlet pipes so that rising sea water cannot flow back
into the pipes and flood the city. Góngora is rightly proud of this
plan. "No one else in Florida has come up with anything like this," he
says. "I think it shows that we are dealing with this problem in a frank
and realistic way."Góngora's plan, as it is now, runs into some troubles: It only
addresses the consequences of six inches of sea-level rise, which is on
the low end of scenarios over the next 20 years. When you ask Góngora
what happens to Miami Beach when the sea level rises three feet and
inundates the entire west side of the city, he says, "I trust we will
find a solution. I have been to Amsterdam. I have seen what the Dutch
have done. If they can figure it out, so can we."You hear this a lot in South Florida: The Dutch can do it, and so can
we. The Dutch promote it, too. The Dutch Consulate in Miami hosts
get-togethers to tout Dutch engineering firms, passing out beautiful
coffee-table books that illustrate dike and storm barriers in the
Netherlands. "It's like the Dutch East India Company all over again,"
Wanless says, referring to the Dutch company that dominated world trade
in the 17th and 18th centuries. "They have expertise to sell, and they
are pushing it hard."The Dutch certainly have valuable experience living with water. Dutch
engineers were involved in creating the massive levees that were built
to protect New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and they are deeply
involved in conversations about how to protect New York and New Jersey
from another Sandy. But no Dutch engineering firm I talked to had any
concrete ideas about how to save Miami. "New Orleans looks a lot like
the Netherlands – it is below sea level, with a big dike around it,"
says Piet Dircke, program director for water management at ARCADIS in
the Netherlands. "If you don't pump it out, the city drowns. It's a big
bathtub. We know how to do that. Miami is different. It is also a
low-­lying city but far more complicated because of issues about water
quality, the porousness of the limestone the city sits on, as well as
water coming in from the west, through the Everglades."Some engineers point to the coastal resort community of Scheveningen
in Holland as a possible inspiration for what might be done in Miami. In
Scheveningen, engineers created an elaborate dike with a road and
parking within it, as well as pedestrian walks and a man-made sand dune.
But Scheveningen has an altogether different geology and coastline than
southern Florida. Then there is the question of scale: The dike at
Scheveningen is a half-mile long and cost nearly $100 million to design
and construct. Miami Beach alone is seven miles long – the entire
Florida coastline is more than 1,200 miles. Even if an elaborate dike
like this were possible, you can't build a wall along the entire coast.
If you just walled off Miami Beach, the water would still flow in from
the bay side.Góngora touts the virtues of sea walls as a way to protect the city,
but those have problems, too. For one thing, although they can help
protect from storm surges, they don't necessarily keep the water out.
"The water can just seep in through the limestone," says Richard
Saltrick, the Miami Beach city engineer, who notes that in some places
the seepage is slow enough that it can be pumped out. Another problem:
The city of Miami Beach has about 60 miles of sea walls on the island.
"The vast majority of them are on private property," says Saltrick. How
do you force people to raise them higher – do you pass a law requiring
everyone whose property includes a sea wall to spend tens of thousands
of dollars to upgrade them? Does the city pay for it? And, of course,
you can have 59.5 miles of six-foot-high sea walls, but if there is one
open gap that is only three feet high, the water will come rushing in.For the next 20 years, Miami Beach hopes to escape inundation by
installing a network of about 40 pumps around the city that can be
cranked up after storms to pump flood water off the streets and inject
it deep underground. It's a good idea, and it may work for a while. But
in the end, Saltrick believes the only long-term way to protect Miami
Beach from sea-level rise is to raise the city itself: the roads, the
buildings, everything. "It's a huge undertaking," Saltrick says. "But
someday, it may come to that." The city is planning to raise roads when
it can, but even that is an impossibly complex task in a built-up place
like Miami Beach. "When you raise the road even a few inches, what
happens to the water?" Saltrick asks rhetorically. "It runs off the road
into the buildings and homes alongside it. So you have to raise those,
as well."

Miami Beach has other infrastructure problems, too. One of them is
how to dispose of the 22 million gallons of sewage the city's residents
create each day. Right now, it's pumped out to one of Miami-­Dade
County's wastewater-treatment plant, which sits on Virginia Key in
Biscayne Bay. The decrepit old facility, which has been plagued by
spills and overflow for a decade, is hugely vulnerable to storm surges
and rising tides. And yet instead of moving the plant to higher, safer
ground, the county wants to sink $550 million into repairs and system
upgrades, leaving it where it is and risking its destruction by rising
waters. "The only way to motivate people who are in denial about climate
change is for the leaders to instill confidence that we'll all still be
here in 2100 and that critical infrastructure – like water, roads and
sewers – will be here, too," says Albert Slap, a lawyer who represents
the Biscayne Bay Waterkeepers, an environmental group that is involved
in the fight over the plant. "And right now, that leadership is sorely
lacking."

Beyond
all these fears that keep south Florida's environmentalists and urban
planners up at night, rising sea levels present an even more chilling
threat to life in greater Miami. Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, which sits
on the edge of the Biscayne Bay just south of Miami, is completely
exposed to hurricanes and rising seas. "It is impossible to imagine a
stupider place to build a nuclear plant than Turkey Point," says Philip
Stoddard, the mayor of South Miami and an outspoken critic of the plant.

The Turkey Point nukes began operation in the early Seventies, long
before sea-level rise was an issue. But precautions were taken to
protect the plant from hurricanes; most importantly, the reactor vessels
are elevated 20 feet above sea level, several feet above the maximum
storm surge the region has seen. According to Florida Power and Light,
the electric utility that operates the plants, there is virtually no
chance of a storm surge causing problems with the reactors. As evidence
of this, Michael Waldron, a spokesman for the company, points to the
fact that Hurricane Andrew, a Category Five hurricane, passed directly
over the plant in 1992, with very little damage. "It goes without saying
that safety is our number-one priority," Waldron said in an e-mail.But Stoddard and other critics of the plant are not reassured. For
one thing, although the plant did weather the hurricane, the peak storm
surge, which was 17 feet high, passed 10 miles north of the plant.
According to Peter W. Harlem, a research geologist at Florida
International University, the plant itself only weathered a surge of
about three feet – hardly a testament to the storm-readiness of the
plant. How would Turkey Point fare if it were hit with a Hurricane
Katrina-size storm surge of 28 feet?Stoddard also points out that, although the reactors themselves are
elevated, some of the other equipment is not. "I was given a tour of the
plant in 2011," says Stoddard. "It was impressively lashed down against
wind, but even I could see vulnerabilities to water." Stoddard noticed
that some of the ancillary­ equipment was not raised high enough. He was
particularly struck by the location of one of the emergency diesel
generators, which are crucial for keeping cooling waters circulating­ in
the event of a power failure (it was the failure of four layers of
power supply that caused the meltdown of reactors in Fukushima, Japan,
after the plant was hit by a tsunami in 2011). Stoddard­ says the
generator was located about 15 feet above sea level, and it was housed
in a container with open louvers. "How easy would it be for water to
flow into that? How well does that generator work when it is under
water?"Another problem: Turkey Point uses a system of cooling canals to
dissipate heat. Those canals are cut into coastal marsh surrounding the
plant, which is only about three feet above sea level.But the biggest problem of all is that inundation maps show that with
three feet of sea-level rise, Turkey Point is cut off from the mainland
and accessible only by boat or aircraft. And the higher the seas go,
the deeper it's submerged.According to Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and the director of
the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, the
situation at Turkey Point underscores the backwardness of how we
calculate the risks of nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Committee,
which oversees the safety of nukes in America, demands that operators
take into account past natural hazards such as storms and earthquakes,
"but they are silent about future hazards like sea-level rise and
increasing storm surges," Lochbaum says. The task force that examined
nuclear-­safety regulations after the Fukushima tsunami recommended that
the NRC begin taking future events into account, but so far, they have
not acted on the recommendation.Still, Florida Power and Light insists the plant is perfectly safe.
When I asked for details about their plans to armor the plant from
sea-level rise, their PR reps were elusive. They told me that the
plant's current design is suitable to handle sea-level rise but would
not tell me how much. (Six inches? Six feet?) They would not disclose
plans to protect or redesign the cooling canals. They assured me that
"all equipment and components vital to nuclear safety are
flood-protected to 22 feet above sea level." But when I asked to visit
the plant and see for myself, they refused.I went out there anyway. I was denied access to the inner workings,
but I got a very nice view of two aging 40-year-old reactors perched on
the edge of a rising sea with millions of people living within a few
miles of the plant. It was as clear a picture of the insanity of modern
life as I've ever seen.Florida Power and Light thinks Turkey Point is such a great place for
nukes that they are proposing to build two more reactors out there.
Given the life expectancy of a nuke plant, it means that the people of
South Florida would likely live with the threat of a radioactive cloud
over their heads until at least 2085. The plan, which would cost upward
of $18 billion, has not yet been approved by state or federal
regulators.Miami
is the most connected city in America, a place where the entire economy
is geared toward the next big banking deal, real-estate deal, drug
deal. As Wayne Pathman, a land-use attorney in Miami, put it to me, "The
biggest question for the future of Miami is how investors will react
when they understand the risks of sea-level rise." The rivers of cash
that are flowing into the city right now are pretty clear evidence that
few investors are worried about that risk. Brickell, the hot new
neighborhood where the $1 billion Brickell CityCentre, one of the
biggest new developments in the city, is currently under construction,
is a few blocks from the water – streets are already nearly impassable
during big storms. "It's partly denial and ignorance, and partly a
feeling that they can beat the odds," says Tony Cho, the president of
Metro1 Properties Inc., a large real-estate firm in Miami.One thing that may change that is insurance rates. After Hurricane
Andrew hit in 1992, many large insurers stopped offering property
coverage in the state, citing the high risks of hurricane insurance.
That left Florida in a dangerous position, with only small regional
insurers to underwrite storm coverage for homeowners. But in the event
of a large storm, the small insurers don't have sufficient capital to
cover the claims they would receive. To remedy the situation, the state
began offering its own low-cost insurance under the name Citizens
Property Insurance Corporation, which has become the largest insurer in
the state. By subsidizing insurance, lawmakers hoped to keep costs down
and development booming. The problem is, Florida is now on the hook for
billions of dollars. "A single big storm could bankrupt the state," says
Eli Lehrer, an insurance expert and president of the R Street
Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.Flood insurance is likely to skyrocket, too. The National Flood
Insurance Program is currently more than $20 billion in debt, thanks to
payouts related to Hurricane Sandy and other extreme-weather events. In
2012, Congress passed the Flood Insurance Reform Act, which jacks the
price of insurance up for people living in known flood zones. More
reforms of this sort are sure to come. For a place like Miami, where
virtually the entire city is a flood zone, the economic costs could be
in the hundreds of billions.The financial catastrophe could play out like this: As insurance
rates climb, fewer are able to afford homes. Housing prices fall, which
slows development, which decreases the tax base, which makes cities and
towns even less able to afford the infrastructure upgrades necessary to
adapt to rising seas. The spiral continues downward. Beaches
deteriorate, hotels sit empty, restaurants close. Because Miami's
largest economies are development and tourism, it's a deadly tailspin.
The threat of sea-level rise bankrupts the state even before it is wiped
out by a killer storm.

In
the not-so-distant future, rising waters will certainly drown Miami.
But is that necessarily the end of the city? John Stuart, the chair of
the architecture department at Florida International University, is
working with students and professors on a multi­year project to imagine
what South Florida's future might look like. "It's pretty clear that we
are not going to be able to stop the water from coming in, so how will
we live?" One of their inspirations is Stiltsville, a collection of
structures in built-on pilings in Biscayne Bay from the Thirties by
Miami residents, some looking for a place to party beyond the easy view
of the law (although they are abandoned now, a few of Stiltsville's
structures still survive in the bay). Stuart and his colleagues are
trying to imagine what a city in the water would look like – How do you
get electricity? Who provides emergency services? "It is really unlike
anything humans have tried to do before," Stuart says. "How do you build
a floating city in this kind of environment?"

Stuart is energized by the challenge of thinking about this. And if
sea-level rise happens slowly enough and Miami doesn't get hit with a
hurricane and the drinking-water supply doesn't go bad and the
real-estate market doesn't crash and the beaches aren't washed away, the
city of Miami may well have time to transform itself into a modern
Venice.

But more likely, the ocean will seep slowly into the city, higher and
higher every year, until a big storm comes along and devastates the
place and people begin to question the wisdom of living in a world that
is slowly drowning. The potential for chaos is self-evident as Miami
becomes a place people flee from rather than flock toward. Liberty City,
a black community downtown, is one of the poorest neighborhoods in
Miami. It also happens to be on some of the highest ground. "Developers
will target this neighborhood," Hashim Yeomans-Benford, a community
organizer in Liberty City, told me. "But I'm not sure it will be a
peaceful transition." As we drove around one afternoon, Yeomans-Benford
talked about the history of racial violence that simmers just below the
surface in Miami. "People will not leave without a fight," he warned.

Americans will also have to face up to the fact that Everglades
National Park, home to one of the most remarkable ecosystems in the
world, is a goner. More than half the park will be inundated with just
three feet of sea-level rise, and the rest of it will vanish shortly
thereafter. "We are going to have to change the name to Everglades
National Marine Sanctuary," one scientist told me. Besides the obvious
tragedy of losing a unique ecosystem, it calls into question the wisdom
of spending billions of federal dollars on the sentimental fantasy that
the Everglades can ever be "restored."

One of the biggest uncertainties in Miami's future is how the rest of
America will feel about rescuing the city. Nobody questioned the wisdom
of spending $40 billion in tax dollars to rebuild after Katrina and
another $60 billion to help rebuild after Sandy, but will they feel the
same about Miami – land of millionaires and beach condos – when the time
comes? Not that everyone doesn't love Miami. But at some point,
Congress is going to balk at spending $50 billion to rebuild the city
every time a tropical storm passes by.

"South Florida doesn't have the power of New York," says Daniel
Kreeger, the South Florida-based executive director of the Association
of Climate Change Officers. "We don't have any major cultural
institutions, we don't have Wall Street, we don't have any great
universities. The unpleasant truth is that it will be all too easy for
the rest of the nation to just let South Florida go."

That is, of course, not the American way. We don't let cities go. We
don't cede territory to the ocean. But this is the direction that our
failure to cut carbon pollution is taking us. The loss of Miami will be a
manifestation of years of denial and apathy, of allowing Big Oil and
Big Coal to divert us from understanding the real-world consequences of
our dependence on fossil fuels.

In Wanless' view, the wisest course of action now is to stop
subsidizing coastal development and create federal and state policies
that encourage people to move out of at-risk low-lying areas. "Instead
of spending a billion dollars to build a new tunnel for the Port of
Miami, we should be spending that money to buy people out of their homes
and relocate them to higher ground," Wanless says. "We have to accept
the reality of what is about to happen to us." But that won't happen
without political leadership, and on this issue, of course, the state of
Florida has none. ("I have a solution for that," says former speaker
Gustafson. "We need to all march up to the capital in Tallahassee and
burn the fucker down. That's the only way we're gonna save South
Florida.")

Stuart compares Miami with Baiae, the ancient Roman resort town in
the bay of Naples that was once a playground for Nero and Julius Ceasar.
Today, because of volcanic activity, the ruins of Baiae are mostly
under water. "This is what humans do," says Stuart. "We inhabit cities,
and then when something happens, we move on. The same thing will happen
with Miami. The only question is, how long can we stick it out?" But for
Stuart, who lives in Miami Beach, the fact that the city is doomed
doesn't diminish his love for the place. "That's the thing about Miami,"
he says. "You'll want to be here until the very end."